Her priorities over the coming year, Jourova said, would be to ensure that the full potential benefits of new technologies are exploited, but that this is balance with the need for people’s rights to be recognised online in the same way they would in real life. She also called for new legislation designed to ensure that users of the internet have “more control and more choice, while future-proofing protections suitable for the digital age.” This legislation, she said, should establish a better balance between the advantages of information technology and the need to safeguard the privacy of individuals accessing the internet.

This speech formed part of a panel discussion entitled “A Digital Magna Carta and the State of Exception.” The debate was chaired by Catherine Dixon, chief executive of the Law Society.:

Jourova’s comments had the support of Anne Jellema, CEO of the World Wide Web Foundation. Jellema said: “The web has unleashed a tidal wave of innovation, but it has also created a tidal wave of data about ourselves.” When it comes to protecting individual privacy, she said, “The law is lagging behind the power of technology.” This is particularly concerning, Jellema contended, at a time when “governments are moving aggressively to expand their surveillance capacities.”

The job of winding up the debate fell to Dr Gus Hosein. Hosein, who is director of the campaign group Privacy, expressed similar sentiments. He pointed to GCHQ’s programme entitled “Squeaky Dophin,” through which it monitors activity on social media websites. Describing the current state of affairs when it comes to privacy safeguards for internet users, he said bluntly that “the present is broken.”

Despite his dim view of the present, however, Hosein remained positive about the potential outlook for the future. He pointed to the way major companies and prominent innovators such as Google are becoming more and more aware of such issues, and taking greater steps to safeguard users.

Concluding, Hosein said that users can protect themselves in three ways: “Understand the technology, demand better technology and don’t allow the internet to discriminate against you – as it does in the US, where American citizens may not be spied upon, but foreigners routinely are.”

Chinese courts recently saw what was probably the country’s first discrimination case focussing on the treatment of a homosexual individual in the workplace. Liu Xiaohu, the lawyer of the plaintiff, has said that the case “will definitely have an impact” on China and the way in which the country views issues of LGBT rights.

The plaintiff, who first filed his case in November and is using the pseudonym Mu Yi, was dismissed from his job, and alleges that this was because of his sexuality. He claims that he was outed as gay after an online video, which was filmed by police and showed him and another gay man arguing, went viral. It was the revelation of his sexuality, he alleges, which led his employer to fire him from his role as a designer.

His employer maintains that “Mu Yi’s” dismissal was not a result of his being revealed as a homosexual, and was not related to his sexual orientation. Yangcheng Evening News reports that the company claims that inappropriate workplace attire and a “poor service attitude” were in fact the reasons for the decision to fire the plaintiff.

It is believed to be the first workplace discrimination case in China to deal with issues of sexual orientation. The Chinese office of PFLAG, a rights advocacy group, believes this to be the case.

The Nanshan District People’s Court, which is in the city of Shenzhen in the south of China, heard the case. A decision on the verdict is expected to be reached at some point within the coming three months, according to Mr Lui. The lawyer described himself and his client as “very optimistic” about the outcome of the case.

The Chinese government only took the decision to decriminalise homosexuality in 1997 – much later than many other countries. Even after it ceased to be a criminal offence, it was still officially listed as a mental illness until 2001. In the relatively short time since, Chinese society has become noticeably more tolerant of homosexuality, especially in the bigger cities, but nonetheless conservative attitudes remain prevalent. Discrimination against LGBT individuals in the workplace is more common than in many other parts of the world, and this means that the decision reached in this case has the potential to be a landmark of considerable importance to other individuals.

According to Yangcheng Evening News, Mu is seeking compensation of 50,000 yuan along with an apology.

Australian TV broadcaster Channel Seven has lost a three-year-long legal battle against the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The battle finally came to an end after Channel Seven lost an appeal in the federal court and was ordered to pay the legal costs of ACMA.

The legal battle stems from a 2011 documentary broadcast detailing the indigenous Brazilian Suruwaha people. The broadcast has been described as a “racist portrayal” of the tribe which violated the television code of practice‘s requirement that broadcasts be fair, balanced, and factually correct. The broadcast would also, according to federal court judge Justice Buchanan, “be likely to provoke or perpetuate intense dislike and serious contempt of and for the Suruwaha tribe and its members.”

The broadcast featured adventurer and writer Paul Raffaele accompanying journalist Tim Noonan through the Amazon. In the program, Noonan and Raffaele alleged that the tribe carry out “one of the worst human rights violations in the world” by encouraging the killing of disabled children “in the most gruesome way possible.” They claimed that disabled children and those born to single mothers were fed, while still living, to wild beasts by the tribe.

Complaints about both the factual accuracy and the tone of these reports were first raised by Survival International, an international organisation that advocates for the rights of tribal people. The organisation formally complained to ACMA after Channel Seven did not correct or retract the many “errors and distortions” that they had highlighted in the broadcast’s allegations of child murder. Channel Seven described the claims made by Survival International as “nonsense” and defended the broadcast, but ACMA found that the allegations of routine child killing were in breach of factual accuracy requirements. Channel Seven challenged this decision through a Judicial Review, but the challenge proved unsuccessful as the court upheld the original judgement.

Stephen Corry, director of Survival International, compared the broadcast to “19th-century colonialist scorn for ‘primitive savages'” designed to “suggest that they don’t deserve any rights.”

The Suruwaha tribe was formed from an amalgamation of members from other tribes who fled the devastation wreaked on the region by global demand for rubber. Members of the tribe who have seen the broadcast are said to be angry. Members of the tribe have also claimed that they were asked to remove their everyday, Western-style clothing for the cameras, and in the final broadcast this had the effect of making them look more primitive and less connected to the outside world.

The Malaysian Bar has received a pledge of support from the Law Society in its current fight against the country’s Sedition Act. The law in question places a prohibition on discourse that displays a “seditious tendency,” and dates back to the British colonial era.

Christopher Leong (pictured), president of the Malaysian Bar, described the law as “extremely objectionable and abhorrent.” He said that the law had been used to prosecute people who were “not terrorist types” and had no intentions of carrying out any illegal acts designed to bring down the government.

Rather, he said, “These are people who are expressing their thoughts about what the important issues for Malaysia are and how they ought to be addressed.”

This year alone, a Chancery Lane meeting was told, over twenty people have been investigated, charged, and prosecuted under the law after they expressed dissent. Among those who have suffered as a result of the law are legal professionals such as solicitors and professors of law.

The act was reportedly not in common use before 2011. However, that year saw Malaysia’s Internal Security Act (ISA) repealed. The ISA allowed people to be detained indefinitely without the right to a fair trial, or to any trial at all.

Following the law’s repeal, Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak issued a promise that the Sedition Act would be next in line for repeal. However, Leong said that “The irony of that” was the fact that “despite that promise, we have seen unprecedented use of the sedition laws earlier this year.”

Leong suggested, however, that the blame may not lay at the feet of the prime minister. He described the government under the current prime minister as “right-thinking with respect to decisions.” However, he said that the prime minister’s political party contained some who “are not supportive of his transformation programme.”

Leong is currently on a visit to London lasting for three days in total. He said that lawyers in Malaysia had benefited significantly from the support of their colleagues around the world, which had helped prevent acts of violence against them from “extremist elements” after they stood up for people’s rights.

“The support that we got from the Law Society and other organisations,” Leong said, “showed the authorities that this was not just a Malaysia issue, this was an international issue.”

Last month, a “walk for peace and freedom” was held by the Malaysian Bar in support of repealing the act. This marks only the fourth time that a street protest has ever been held by the Bar.

Judges at the Court of Appeal have decided that Abdul Hakim Belhaj, a Libyan man who claims to have been illegally sent back to his home land and tortured, can mount a case against the UK government in court.

Previously, the High Court had decided that Mr Belhaj’s case could not be heard in a British courtroom because of the potential damage it could do to international relations. Specifically, it was decided by Mr Justice Simon that, in spite of the alleged knowledge held by UK officials, a court in England did not have the power to adjudicate on claims of rendition and torture that took place in Libya. Furthermore, the court dcided that many of the claims were “non-justiciable” in UK courts because they involved officials in China, Libya and other countries such as Thailand and Malaysia.On these grounds, it was decided that the case be thrown out.

However, the Court of Appeal has overturned this decision, with judges deciding that Mr Belhaj’s claims were “grave” enough to warrant being heard in court. Judges at the Appeal Court said that state immunity was not enough to bar the proceedings. Furthermore, Lord Dyson voiced the opinion that there is “a compelling public interest in the investigation by the English courts of these very grave allegations.”

Sapna Malik, the lawyer representing Mr Belhaj, described the decision as a “very significant step forward.” Mr Belhaj, who is now a politician in his homeland of Libya, said that he and his wife were “gratified by the judges’ decision to give us our day in court.”

Mr Belhaj alleges that MI6 and Jack Straw, the former Foreign Secretary, were deeply involved with the arrangement of the rendition of Mr Belhaj and his wife from China. According to Mr Belhaj, who previously led a group opposing the Muammar Gaddafi regime, claimed that information leading to his rendition was provided by British Intelligence.

The rendition took place in 2004, and resulted in Mr Belhaj and his wife Fatima Boudchar being returned to their homeland where they were subjected to torture which, according to Mr Belhaj, is “as fresh and as painful for us as if it happened yesterday.” Mr Straw has previously denied any awareness of the rendition.

The government and Jack Straw now have the option to appeal to the Supreme Court. If an appeal is made, the case will not be heard until this has concluded. According to a statement from the Foreign Office, it is currently considering whether to lodge an application for an appeal or not.

Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court, has praised South Africa’s Oscar Pistorius trial, which was controversially televised. Neuberger’s comments were included in a speech in which he stressed the value of open justice.

Neuberger said that broadcasting trials “is merely the modern extension of enabling the public to enter the courts physically.” Like making courts open to public visitors, televising a trial gives ordinary people access to the proceedings of the justice system and the ability to see how decisions are reached first hand.

Lord Neuberger, speaking in Hong Kong to the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents’ Club, said that “Open justice is an essential feature of the rule of law. In its most basic form, it means that court hearings take place in public and judges’ decisions are available to the public.” He also stressed the importance of making sure that the way in which information was provided to the public was not only accessible but comprehensible, and described the role of the media in doing this as “essential.”

By contrast, he said, “if courts sit in private, judges cease to be properly accountable for their decisions, as the public do not know what the evidence and arguments were put before the judge, or why the judge reached a particular decision.” Furthermore, Neuberger warned that courts may “get into bad habits” should the doors be shut to the press and the public, and this could erode confidence in the integrity of the justice system.

On this basis, Neuberger decidedly expressed his support for the concept of televising trials. However, he acknowledged that it is important to approach the matter in the right way. For example, he described the US’ trial of OJ Simpson as a lesson “in how not to do it.” By contrast, he praised the more recent coverage of South Africa’s trial of Paralympian Oscar Pistorius, calling the media handling of the trial “impressive.”

Neuberger also stressed that it was essential journalists do not abuse their privileged position in passing on vital information about legal proceedings to the public. He acknowledged that simplification and even bias are likely to creep into the way that judgements are reported, and also that the media will likely level criticism at some aspects of the law. However, he insisted that through this the reporting process should remain “based on accuracy and truth rather than misreporting and propaganda.”

Summing up the importance of journalistic integrity in this process, he said “Inaccurate and unfair reporting of a judge’s decision in order to make a good story is an abuse of the freedom of expression accorded to the press and it undermines the rule of law.”

Google has recently made some first steps in complying with the recent EU ruling that individuals may have some information about themselves removed from search results as part of a “right to be forgotten.” However, while Google has done a lot in a very short time to comply with the ruling in spite of the company’s own disappointment with the controversial decision, there remain strict limitations in place. Some of these limitations are with the ruling itself, and show no signs of going away however closely Google complies with the law.

Google recently created a webform through which people are able to request the removal of content. Individuals completing the form will have to explain their reasons for considering the content “irrelevant, outdated or otherwise inappropriate.” Under the EU ruling, it is only this type of content that can be removed in order to prevent negative media coverage from a person’s past continuing to dominate any search engine query relating to that individual. Those submitting requests will also have to specify which European jurisdiction they reside in and provide digital copies of identification in order to prove their personal eligibility.

However, by Google’s own admission these efforts are in the early stages. The form is just an “initial effort” with significant changes and improvements to the company’s systems still expected in the months to come.

Furthermore, the EU ruling is disappointingly non-specific even for some of those who agree with the European Court of Justice’s decision. The type of content specified as eligible for removal is extremely broad, and at the same time vague enough to make it difficult to specify any one type of content. For their part, Google seem to have adopted a fairly narrow interpretation. Once a removal request has been received, they will weigh up whether the information’s availability is in the public interest, and if they feel that it is the request is likely to be rejected. When it comes to the public interest, Google seem to have matters such as financial fraud, misconduct and professional malpractice in mind.

There are also some limitations that will never be overcome by Google’s efforts alone. This fact will not be unwelcome to the many who have disagreed with the EU Court of Justice’s ruling, but will certainly disappoint those who are hoping to have negative media coverage buried. For a start, the ruling relates only to search engine results. It will still be accessible through links on other websites and searches within the news website itself. Secondly, it only applies to search engines focussed on markets within the EU. Through the nature of the internet, it is extremely easy for individuals within the EU to access search engines outside EU jurisdictions in which the results may still appear, and this could include Google’s own, main .com domain.

Since the days of Apartheid, South Africa has been hailed for undergoing a complete transformation which has seen drastic improvements in racial equality. However, black groups still remain very much underrepresented among the country’s lawyers.

Those who would once have been severely restricted by Apartheid now make up two thirds of the past ten years’ law graduates. While this figure would look encouraging on its own, data from the Law Society of South Africa reveals that only 37% of the country’s practising attorneys are black. There is evidently great disparity between the number of black people who complete law degrees in South Africa and the number who go on to work as lawyers. When it is considered that approximately 79% of South Africa’s population as a whole are black, even the two thirds (66%) of graduates that are black begins to look a little low.

According to South African attorney Michael Motsoeneng Bill, “The rhetoric has been that there was room for all of us, but it created too high an expectation. The idea that you are a black lawyer and therefore your fate is sealed is wrong.” Bill himself has enjoyed success as a black lawyer, but has also seen how difficult it is for his peers to get on in the industry.

The reason for the underrepresentation of black people among South Africa’s 22,000 practicing solicitors, Bill theorises, is that 80% of law firms remain white-owned, and this figure includes many of the big players. This is coupled with the fact that corporate clients are the most lucrative and desirable ones in the legal industry, and corporations in South Africa also remain heavily white-dominated. Bill suggests that ultimately, “They often don’t have the courage to change the status quo and diversify briefing patterns.” This leaves black lawyers confined to lower-paying areas of practice such as conveyancing, and such restrictions could potentially be a disincentive to work as a solicitor at all.

For some, the issue of underrepresentation has been highlighted by the high-profile Oscar Pistorius trial. Thanks to the decision to allow the trial to be televised, it has shown a case within the South African court system to the world. The picture the world has seen has included an all-white defence team and predominantly white team acting for the prosecution. Considering the giant steps towards equality and diversity that so many other parts of South Africa have experienced in recent years, many have found this image a surprising one.

In the past couple of years, numerous cases of mis-sold PPI cases have been uncovered leading to an enormous spurt in claims for PPI refunds. PPI or Payment Protection Insurance covers the credit card payments or loan payments in case of sickness, accident or unemployment. You may have also been mis-sold the policy without your knowledge.

Considering PPI Claims

If you look into the PPI basics, you will find that the policy is in essence a good one, but due to the wide mis-selling, hundreds of people are left without any cover. And this even happened in spite of paying a huge amount in monthly premiums. The cost of the insurance is large, and dwarfed the interest thus leading many people to think of it as an expensive affair.

Cause for Mis-selling

The financial providers were under huge stress to increase the sales of PPI which forced them to mis-sell thus leading to the PPI fraud. You could have avoided getting embroiled in the PPI scam if you had known whether you really need to have a PPI while taking the policy.

Standalone PPI

If you have taken a PPI policy along with a loan or mortgage, the provider should let you cancel the insurance. If you do need a PPI, you should get it as standalone insurance and cancel the PPI you purchased along with the loan to save money. A PPI calculator will help you know the exact amount of money you need to pay. You get to save money with a standalone policy because the commission money will be reduced. With a standalone factor, you need to cover only one third amount of the cost.

If you have been mis-sold, you can lodge a PPI complaint with the concerned provider, or get assistance from the Financial Ombudsman Service. PPI help can also be obtained by approaching PPI claim agencies such as the PPIClaimsAdviceLine.Co. With the High Court judgment being made in favour of the consumers, PPI claims should be dealt with in a fair manner now.

South Korean electronics firm Samsung is to sue Dyson for 10 billion Korean won(£5.6 million). The lawsuit claims that the British appliance maker had “hurt Samsung’s corporate image” through past litigation falsely claiming the electronics firm was copying features of its appliances.

In August 2013, Dyson brought a case for infringement of patent against Samsung, claiming that the electronics company had copied a steering system used in some of Dyson’s cleaners. According to a statement made by Dyson chief executive James Dyson at the time “Although they are copying Dyson’s patented technology, their machine is not the same. Samsung has many patent lawyers so I find it hard not to believe that this is a deliberate or utterly reckless infringement of our patent.”

The lawsuit was later dropped in October, as the Korean company was able to show it had been using this technology before Dyson filed their patent. It was, therefore, decisively established that the company had not been copying Dyson. However, Samsung contends that this was too late to prevent harm to their image in the eyes of the public.

The new lawsuit was filed at Seoul District Court last week, and the reasons behind the case were explained in a statement to the Korea Times. The company originally stated an intention to assess the damage that had been made to their image at the time that Dyson’s lawsuit was dropped. They said they would then decide whether they should take action of their own, and it seems this decision has now been reached.

The sum that is initially being demanded may not be the full extent of the lawsuit. According to the statement a spokesperson for the company made to the Korea Times; “We are initially seeking 10bn won from the UK-based manufacturer. However, the amount will increase depending on how the court proceedings go.” The spokesperson went on to say that “Samsung’s marketing activities were negatively affected by Dyson’s groundless litigation, which is intolerable.”

According to a spokesperson for Dyson, the company is “not apologising.” The spokesperson went on to claim that Dyson have not yet been provided with a copy of the complaint made against them.

Responding to the new litigation from Samsung, James Dyson called it “surprising” that Samsung was “so worried.” Of the original lawsuit for patent infringement which started the trouble, Dyson said simply “We patent our technology, and naturally defend it.” He then went on to suggest that the judgement of the original case suggested the protection afforded by the patent system is “not enough.”